I figured this would be a good companion piece to the "Open Mindedness" video. Though I am sure many here know what Critical Thinking is but it couldn't hurt to have something for people to refer to.

There are many reasons for the popularity of paranormal beliefs in the United States today, including: (1) the irresponsibility of the mass media, who exploit the public taste for nonsense, (2) the irrationality of the American world-view, which supports such unsupportable claims as life after death and the efficacy of the polygraph, and (3) the ineffectiveness of public education, which generally fails to teach students the essential skills of critical thinking. As a college professor, I am especially concerned with this third problem. Most of the freshman and sophomore students in my classes simply do not know how to draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence. At most, they've been taught in high school what to think; few of them know how to think.

In an attempt to remedy this problem at my college, I've developed an elective course called “Anthropology and the Paranormal.” The course examines the complete range of paranormal beliefs in contemporary American culture, from precognition and psychokinesis to channeling and cryptozoology and everything between and beyond, including astrology, UFO's and creationism. I teach the students very little about anthropological theories and even less about anthropological terminology. Instead, I try to communicate the essence of the anthropological perspective, by teaching them, indirectly, what the scientific method is all about. I do so by teaching them how to evaluate evidence. I give them six simple rules to follow when considering any claim, and then show them how to apply those six rules to the examination of any paranormal claim.

The six rules of evidential reasoning are my own distillation and simplification of the scientific method. To make it easier for students to remember these half-dozen guidelines, I've coined an acronym for them. Ignoring the vowels, the letters in the word “FiLCHeRS” stand for the rules of Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability and Sufficiency. Apply these six rules to the evidence offered for any claim , I tell my students, and no one will ever be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief. You'll be filch-proof.

Falsifiability

It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false.

It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning.

The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known - the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible - logically impossible - for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue - in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable.

For example, the true claim that the life span of human beings is less than 200 years is falsifiable; it would be falsified if a single human being were to live to be 200 years old. Similarly, the true claim that water freezes at 32 degrees F. is falsifiable; it would be falsified if water were to freeze at, say, 34 degrees F. Each of these claims is firmly established as scientific “fact”, and we do not expect either claim ever to be falsified; however, the point is that either could be. Any claim that could not be falsified would be devoid of any propositional content; that is, it would not be making a factual assertion- it would instead be making an emotive statement, a declaration of the way the claimant feels about the world. Nonfalsifiable claims do communicate information, but what they describe is the claimant's value orientation. They communicate nothing whatsoever of a factual nature, and hence are neither true nor false. Nonfalsifiable statements are proportionally vacuous.

There are two principal ways in which the rule of falsifiability can be violated - two ways, in other words, of making nonfalsifiable claims. The first variety of nonfalsifiable statements is the undeclared claim: a statement that is so broad or vague that it lacks any propositional content. The undeclared claim is basically unintelligible and consequently meaningless. Consider, for example, the claim that crystal therapists can use pieces of quartz to restore balance and harmony to a person's spiritual energy? What does it mean to have unbalanced spiritual energy? How is the condition recognized and diagnosed? What evidence would prove that someone's unbalanced spiritual energy had been - or had not been - balanced by the application of crystal therapy? Most New Age wonders, in fact, consist of similarly undeclared claims that dissolve completely when exposed to the solvent of rationality.

The undeclared claim has the advantage that virtually any evidence that could be adduced could be interpreted as congruent with the claim, and for that reason it is especially popular among paranormalists who claim precognitive powers. Jeanne Dixon, for example, predicted that 1987 would be a year “filled with changes” for Caroline Kennedy. Dixon also predicted that Jack Kemp would “face major disagreements with the rest of his party” in 1987 and that “world-wide drug terror” would be “unleashed by narcotics czars” in the same year. She further revealed that Dan Rather “may (or may not) be hospitalized” in 1988, and that Whitney Houston's “greatest problem” in 1986 would be balancing her personal life against her career.” The undeclared claim boils down to a statement that can be translated as “Whatever will be, will be.”

The second variety of nonfalsifiable statements, which is even more popular among paranormalists, involves the use of the multiple out, that is, an inexhaustible series of excuses intended to explain away the evidence that would seem to falsify the claim. Creationists, for example, claim that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. They do so despite the fact that we can observe stars that are billions of light-years from the earth, which means that the light must have left those stars billions of years ago, and which proves that the universe must be billions of years old. How then do the creationists respond to this falsification of their claim? By suggesting that God must have created the light already on the way from those distant stars at the moment of creation 10,000 years ago. No conceivable piece of evidence, of course, could disprove that claim.

Additional examples of multiple outs abound in the realm of the paranormal. UFO proponents, faced with a lack of reliable physical or photographic evidence to buttress their claims, point to a secret “government conspiracy” that is allegedly preventing the release of evidence that would support their case. Psychic healers say they can heal you if you have enough faith in their powers. Psychokinetics say they can bend spoons with their minds if they are not exposed to negative vibrations from skeptical observers. Tarot readers can predict your fate if you're sincere in your desire for knowledge. The multiple out means, in effect, “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

Logic

Any argument offered as evidence in support of any claim must be sound.

An argument is said to be “valid” if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is “sound” if it is valid and if all the premises are true. The rule of logic thus governs the validity of inference. Although philosophers have codified and named the various forms of valid arguments, it is not necessary to master a course in formal logic in order to apply the rules of inference consistently and correctly. An invalid argument can be recognized by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises are true, then the argument is invalid. Consider the following syllogism, for example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. That argument is invalid; because a single flea-ridden feline named Xavier would provide an effective counterexample. If an argument is invalid, then it is, by definition, unsound. Not all valid arguments are sound, however. Consider this example: All dogs have fleas; Xavier is a dog; therefore Xavier has fleas. That argument is unsound, even though it is valid, because the first premise is false: All dogs do not have fleas.

To determine whether a valid argument is sound is frequently problematic; knowing whether a given premise is true or false often demands additional knowledge about the claim that may require empirical investigation. If the argument passes these two tests, however - if it is both valid and sound - then the conclusion can be embraced with certainty.

The rule of logic is frequently violated by pseudoscientists. Erich von Daniken, who singlehandedly popularized the ancient-astronaut mythology in the 1970's, wrote many books in which he offered invalid and unsound arguments with benumbing regularity ( see Omohundro 1976). In Chariots of the Gods? he was not above making arguments that were both logically invalid and factually inaccurate - in other words, arguments that were doubly unsound. For example, von Daniken argues that the map of the world made by the sixteenth century Turkish admiral Piri Re'is is so “astoundingly accurate” that it could only have been made from satellite photographs. Not only is the argument invalid (any number of imaginable techniques other than satellite photography could result in an “astoundingly accurate” map, but the premise is simply wrong - the Piri Re'is map, in fact, contains many gross inaccuracies (see Story 1981)

Comprehensiveness

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be exhaustive - that is, all of the available evidence must be considered.

For obvious reasons, it is never reasonable to consider only the evidence that supports a theory and to discard the evidence that contradicts it. This rule is straightforward and self-apparent, and it requires little explication or justification. Nevertheless, it is a rule that is frequently broken by proponents of paranormal claims and by those who adhere to paranormal beliefs.

For example, the proponents of biorhythm theory are fond of pointing to airplane crashes that occurred on days when the pilot, copilot, and/or navigator were experiencing critically low points in their intellectual, emotional, and/or physical cycles. The evidence considered by the biorhythm apologists, however, does not include the even larger number of airplane crashes that occurred when the crews were experiencing high or neutral points in their biorhythm cycles (Hines 1988:160). Similarly, when people believe that Jeanne Dixon has precognitive ability because she predicted the 1988 election of George Bush (which she did, two months before the election, when every social scientist, media maven and private citizen in the country was making the same prognostication), they typically ignore the thousands of forecasts that Dixon has made that have failed to come true (such as her predictions that John F. Kennedy would not win the presidency in 1960, that World War III would begin in 1958, and that Fidel Castro would die in 1969). If you are willing to be selective in the evidence you consider, you could reasonably conclude that the earth is flat.

Honesty

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without self-deception.

The rule of honesty is a corollary to the rule of comprehensiveness. When you have examined all of the evidence, it is essential that you be honest with yourself about the results of that examination. If the weight of the evidence contradicts the claim, then you are required to abandon belief in that claim. The obverse, of course, would hold as well.

The rule of honesty, like the rule of comprehensiveness, is frequently violated by both proponents and adherents of paranormal beliefs. Parapsychologists violate this rule when they conclude, after numerous subsequent experiments have failed to replicate initially positive psi results, that psi must be an elusive phenomenon. (Applying Occam's Razor, the more honest conclusion would be that the original positive result must have been a coincidence.) Believers in the paranormal violate this rule when they conclude, after observing a “psychic” surreptitiously bend a spoon with his hands, that he only cheats sometimes.

In practice, the rule of honesty usually boils down to an injunction against breaking the rule of falsifiability by taking a multiple out. There is more to it than that, however: The rule of honesty means that you must accept the obligation to come to a rational conclusion once you have examined all the evidence. If the overwhelming weight of all the evidence falsifies your belief, then you must conclude that the belief is false, and you must face the implications of that conclusion forthrightly. In the face of overwhelmingly negative evidence, neutrality and agnosticism are no better than credulity and faith. Denial, avoidance, rationalization, and all the other familiar mechanisms of self-deception would constitute violations of the rule of honesty.

In my view, this rule alone would all but invalidate the entire discipline of parapsychology. After more than a century of systematic, scholarly research, the psi hypothesis remains wholly unsubstantiated and unsupportable; parapsychologists have failed, as Ray Hyman (1959:7) observes, to produce “any consistent evidence for paranormality that can withstand scrutiny.” From all indications, the number of parapsychologists who observe the rule of honesty pales in comparison with the number who delude themselves. Veteran psychic investigator Eric Dingwall (1958:162) summed up his extensive experience in parapsychological research with this observation: “After sixty years' experience with most of the leading parapsychologists of that period I do not think I could name a half dozen whom I could call objective students who honestly wished to discover the truth.”

Replicability

If the evidence for any claim is based upon an experimental result, or if the evidence offered in support of any claim could logically be explained as coincidental, then it is necessary for the evidence to be repeated in subsequent experiments or trials.

The rule of replicability provides a safeguard against the possibility of error, fraud, or coincidence. A single experiment concerns the production of nuclear fusion or the existence of telepathic ability. Any experiment, no matter how carefully designed and executed, is always subject to the possibility of implicit bias or undetected error. The rule of replicability, which requires independent observers to follow the same procedures and to achieve the same results, is an effective way of correcting bias or error, even if the bias or error remains permanently unrecognized. If the experimental results are the product of deliberate fraud, the rule of replicability will ensure that the experiment will eventually be performed by honest researchers.

If the phenomenon in question could conceivably be the product of coincidence, then the phenomenon must be replicated before the hypothesis of coincidence can be rejected. If the coincidence is in fact the explanation for the phenomenon, then the phenomenon will not be duplicated in subsequent trials, and the hypothesis of coincidence will be confirmed; but if coincidence is not the explanation, then the phenomenon may be duplicated, and an explanation other than coincidence will have to be sought. If I correctly predict the next role of the dice, you should demand that I duplicate the feat before granting that my prediction was anything but a coincidence.

The rule of replicability is regularly violated by parapsychologists, who are especially fond of misinterpreting coincidences. The famous “psychic sleuth” Gerard Croiset, for example, allegedly solved numerous baffling crimes and located hundreds of missing persons in a career that spanned five decades, from the 1940's until his death in 1980. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of Croiset's predictions were either vague and nonfalsifiable or simply wrong. Given the fact that Croiset made thousands of predictions during his lifetime, it is hardly surprising that he enjoyed one or two chance “hits”. The late Dutch parapsychologist Wilhelm Tenhaeff, however, seized upon those “very few prize cases” to argue that Croiset possessed demonstrated psi powers (Hoebens 1986a:130). That was a clear violation of the rule of replicability, and could not have been taken as evidence of Croiset's psi abilities even if the “few prize cases” had been true. (In fact, however, much of Tenhaeff's data was fraudulent - See Hoebens 1986b)

Sufficiency

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations: (1) the burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant, (2) extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and (3) evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim.

The burden of proof always rests with the claimant for the simple reason that the absence of disconfirming evidence is not the same as the presence of confirming evidence. This rule is frequently violated by proponents of paranormal claims, who argue that, because their claims have not been disproved, they have therefore been proved. (UFO buffs, for example, argue that because skeptics have not explained every UFO sighting, some UFO sightings must be extraterrestrial spacecraft.) Consider the implications of that kind of reasoning: If I claim that Adolf Hitler is alive and well and living in Argentina, how could you disprove my claim? Since the claim is logically possible, the best you could do (in the absence of unambiguous forensic evidence) is to show that the claim is highly improbable - but that would not disprove it. The fact that you cannot prove that Hitler is not living in Argentina, however, does not mean that I have proved that he is. It only means that I have proved that he could be - but that would mean very little; logical possibility is not the same as established reality. If the absence of disconfirming evidence were sufficient proof of a claim, then we could “prove” anything that we could imagine. Belief must be based not simply on the absence of disconfirming evidence but on the presence of confirming evidence. It is the claimant's obligation to furnish that confirming evidence.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence for the obvious reason of balance. If I claim that it rained for ten minutes on my way to work last Tuesday, you would be justified in accepting that claim as true on the basis of my report. But if I claim that I was abducted by extraterrestrial aliens who whisked me to the far side of the moon and performed bizarre medical experiments on me, you would be justified in demanding more substantial evidence. The ordinary evidence of my testimony, while sufficient for ordinary claims, is not sufficient for extraordinary ones.

In fact, testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim, whether it is offered by an authority or a layperson, for the simple reason that a human being can lie or make a mistake. No amount of expertise in any field is a guarantee against human fallibility, and expertise does not preclude the motivation to lie; therefore a person's credentials, knowledge, and experience cannot, in themselves, be taken as sufficient evidence to establish the truth of a claim. Moreover, a person's sincerity lends nothing to the credibility of his or her testimony. Even if people are telling what they sincerely believe to be the truth, it is always possible that they could be mistaken. Perception is a selective act, dependent upon belief, context, expectation, emotional and biochemical states, and a host of other variables. Memory is notoriously problematic, prone to a range of distortions, deletions, substitutions, and amplifications. Therefore the testimony that people offer of what they remember seeing or hearing should always be regarded as only provisionally and approximately accurate; when people are speaking about the paranormal, their testimony should never be regarded as reliable evidence in and of itself. The possibility and even the likelihood of error are far too extensive (see Connor 1986)

Conclusion

The first three rules of FiLCHeRS - falsifiability, logic, and comprehensiveness - are all logically necessary rules of evidential reasoning. If we are to have confidence in the veracity of any claim, whether normal or paranormal, the claim must be propositionally meaningful, and the evidence offered in support of the claim must be rational and exhaustive.

The last three rules of FiLCHeRS - honesty, replicability, and sufficiency - are all pragmatically necessary rules of evidential reasoning. Because human beings are often motivated to rationalize and lie to themselves, because they are sometimes motivated to lie to others, because they can make mistakes, and because perception and memory are problematic, we must demand that the evidence for any actual claim be evaluated without self-deception, that it be carefully screened for error, fraud, and appropriateness, and that it be substantial and unequivocal.

What I tell my students, then, is that you can and should use FiLCHeRS to evaluate the evidence offered for any claim. If the claim fails any one of these six tests, then it should be rejected; but if it passes all six tests, then you are justified in placing considerable confidence in it.

Passing all six tests, of course, does not guarantee that the claim is true (just because you have examined all the evidence available today is no guarantee that there will not be new and disconfirming evidence available tomorrow), but it does guarantee that you have good reasons for believing the claim. It guarantees that you have sold your belief for a fair price, and that it has not been filched from you.

Being a responsible adult means accepting the fact that almost all knowledge is tentative, and accepting it cheerfully. You may be required to change your belief tomorrow, if the evidence warrants, and you should be willing and able to do so. That, in essence, is what skepticism means: to believe if and only if the evidence warrants.

James Lett is an associate professor of anthropology, Department of Social Sciences, Indian River Community College, 3209 Virginia Ave., Ft.Pierce, Florida 34981, U.S.A.. He is author of The Human Enterprise: A Critical Introduction to Anthropological Theory.T aken from Skeptical Inquirer.

Thanks for this, I have to wonder though how it is that your curriculum slipped under the radar of the powers that be.There is good reason why logic and critical thinking are not taught in public schools k-12,because a dumb public is malleable and an educated public is not.I desire that you be allowed to continue your teaching,and not be censored in any way.Again, much gratitude for this post.

I actually disagree.. "critical thinking" doesnt necessarily make you any less malleable, if anything it makes people more predictable.

If one acts according to any paradigm, their reaction is as inevitable as any equation.

All critical thinking does is convince the thinker that they are smart and are thus able to make more capable decisions when in reality, the fundamental assumptions by which those decisions arise are to their disadvantage.

Critical thinking is like clothing yourself in tin and convincing yourself your wearing steel lol.. All it really is, is a poor attempt to rationalize the world so it can be dealt with at arms length. In a way its nothing but cowardice.

Strip away the logic and all we are is naked children with a superiority complex

Your opinion does nothing other than prove that you do not understand the process behind, or function of, critical thinking.Cowardice? How is looking at the world from a skeptical viewpoint and not allowing yourself to buy into everything anyone says cowardice?

As Alexander Hamilton once said "those who don't stand for something will fall for anything." While I may be using that quote in a different context then it was originally used, it is still relevant. Your post puts you in the latter camp.

I actually disagree.. "critical thinking" doesnt necessarily make you any less malleable, if anything it makes people more predictable.

If one acts according to any paradigm, their reaction is as inevitable as any equation.

All critical thinking does is convince the thinker that they are smart and are thus able to make more capable decisions when in reality, the fundamental assumptions by which those decisions arise are to their disadvantage.

Critical thinking is like clothing yourself in tin and convincing yourself your wearing steel lol.. All it really is, is a poor attempt to rationalize the world so it can be dealt with at arms length. In a way its nothing but cowardice.

Strip away the logic and all we are is naked children with a superiority complex

Well what kind of thinking would you have us do? Retarded thinking? I don't think I have ever heard someone argue against thought. It's highly..retarded.

_________________________Devils speak of the way in which she'll manifest

I actually disagree.. "critical thinking" doesnt necessarily make you any less malleable, if anything it makes people more predictable.

It does make you less malleable IF you know which questions to ask. Critical thinking implies opening up for someone's ideas but at the same time think and relate to other information you have at hand to approve or disapprove a statement or idea.

I, however, do agree that a person is still malleable. The gift of a critical mind doesn't necessarily imply a person believes fewer illogical statements or ideas. A factor is the will to even question personal beliefs and ideas, something which very few people can and are willingly to do. If a person cannot question his own ideas and beliefs, and only comment on others, then this person isn't critically thinking but only a mere "rebel without a cause".

Your opinion does nothing other than prove that you do not understand the process behind, or function of, critical thinking.---Well what kind of thinking would you have us do? Retarded thinking? I don't think I have ever heard someone argue against thought. It's highly..retarded.

Simply assuming that because i dont agree with you, i must not be intelligent enough to actually understand the truth of it, only shows how ignorant and narrow minded you are.. how about rather than simply assuming that all those who differ from you must be stupid, you should for one minute, take the time to ask a question instead of immediately judging what you do not understand as having no value.

What i was talking about was not thinking in an open minded fashion, or not thinking at all, but rather keeping the thoughts fluid rather then forcing your attention into a paradigm forced on you by someone else that only defines your limitations according to a pre-conceived notion of what you "think" about any given thing.

You would be surprised what you can do when you dont bind your thought to any one thing or way of thinking... Letting go of an association doesnt make you an idiot.. your not going to go join an idiot club if you know better.. You wont just magically become stupid because of it either.

So saying, real critical thinking isnt something thats "thought out" its a box an individuals thinking takes place in, which is fine, but any time you identify an idea or perceive an association as arising from critical thinking, the only thing you do is build a tower that is bound to fall.

The majority of human behavior is not based on logic, but rather on perceived notions of logic that individual takes on, notions that are inevitably as meaningless as any other "idea of how things are". Basically im arguing against the self delusion of faulty reasoning, which seemingly only arises in people who take an idea or assumption about something over the direct example of it.

Yeah, they are both pretty much the same opinion, the only difference is in your statement you didnt imply that i was stupid, but rather what i said was stupid and thus dismissed quickly.

Ahh i didnt see dimitri's post there.

Quote:

The gift of a critical mind doesn't necessarily imply a person believes fewer illogical statements or ideas. A factor is the will to even question personal beliefs and ideas, something which very few people can and are willingly to do.If a person cannot question his own ideas and beliefs, and only comment on others, then this person isn't critically thinking but only a mere "rebel without a cause".

This is just what i meant.. Actually, i think you said it even better than i did.

Critical thinking without questioning one's own beliefs in accordance with unbiased direct experience is just the swallowing of whatever junk someone else hands you, regardless of what label its given.

The primary difference between someone well versed in experience and experimentation in a subject and someone who accepts someone else's paradigm on a particular issue, is that the well versed person can explain their point of view a hundred different ways, a person who simply accepted someone else's paradigm can usually only see 3/5 examples of the subject and if you talk to them long enough you find those examples usually arnt based in a rational direct example, but rather in some kind of accepted opinion or philosophy.

An example of this could be, the paradigm, or philosophy based on an assumption that man only uses 10% of his brain. This of course is a myth, but to the person who assumes that this "fact" is true, their logic and point of reasoning stems from a very different faucet of relative "experience", making associations with causes that only correlate to certain degrees resulting in a partial and distorted view of the subjects based in that relative philosophy.

Theres other, deeper associations though that from one point of logic seem absurd and from another point of logic based in a different assumption can seem entirely rational.

So saying, separating the irrational from the rational, without direct experience and experiment, and without constantly questioning that rational in accordance with observable fact.. is just another religion built upon faulty premises.

It appears to me that all of you are in fact in favor of “critical thinking,” but are simply arguing over the nuts and bolts of it.

If I understand Leingod correctly, he is basically saying that just because someone claims and believes themselves to be using critical thinking in their assessments, they might actually be using a view that is tainted by their subjective personal experiences and view points, instead of having the ability to step outside of themselves and to look at a situation truly objectively. If that is indeed what he is saying then I would have to agree.

_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

This absolutely one of the best, testie I have seen. When I was in college this was a course sad to say of less importance, maybe they did not want the students to think. In all this article made me to crack open my college book on critical thinking and reevalve the meaning. To put this as the foremost article is brilliant. Thank you..

Wow. After reading the previous debating between Leingod and others, I fear I have a while to go before I understand.. No, perceive* the inner workings of human thought and belief as well as other members of this club.

Having said this, I believe I would be correct, and maybe even obvious in saying that there is no SET way in which a person will perceive, interpret or accept any statement no matter how extreme.

The main article of this forum really is a comprehensive guide to critical thinking - In my opinion. I am grateful to the author and to whoever re-posted it here. I like the fact that a critical view to the article was taken and I believe I have only learnt more because of this.

I think critical thinking is an essential tool in the Satanists arsenal,as it demonstrates our open mindedness, I believe critical thinking is really needed to decode PARTS of the Satanic Bible as to others, dare I say the closed minded ones, that the Satanic Bible can come across wrong, or can be interpreted wrong, this creates a problem as these misinterpretations are often used against us as I noticed on an interview between Bob larson and Nena Lavey and Nikolas Shreck.

_________________________
The Mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless you open it!

Using quick reply here so this is aimed at 6 rather than anyone else. I enjoyed reading this post over at SIN and I like to re-read it from time to time. It is a very great use for many different types of experiences.

It also helps to tell the differences between what is true and what is false. However, as I have replied to this before, don't you think that the outcomes of this guide would be different to any involved? Some people have said that they have experienced things (not trying to plug this show or in any ways validate it but like Ghost Hunters) through scientific means. These guide weeds out certain experiences but in the way of the person employing this guide, the outcomes could turn out slightly different due each person's experiences.

But again, excellent post and I wish there were more teachers out there that chose different ways to entertain superstition and beliefs. In the end, you can learn a lot about yourself and your perspectives can evolve onto better ones. Beliefs that are based in FACT and not FAITH.

If critical thinking is applied in the way it was intended there will be no difference in conclusions that are reached. If people are reaching different conclusions there is a problem with one of the. The ability to replicate results over and over again is very important.

There is nothing "scientific" about Ghost Hunters, the show or anyone who calls themselves by that title. And they certainly aren't applying critical thinking skills in any way. All they ever see is positive evidence because they have already reached the conclusion that ghosts are real.

As far as personal experience is concerned, well, it doesn't count for much. Our minds are very good at playing tricks on us and we often see what we want to see rather than what actually is (or isn't) there.

Ghost Hunters, the show, uses scientific means to monitor spirit activity. It really an interesting show to watch when you have time to catch it. Regardless of what you believe as a skeptic or a non skeptic. At least it's entertaining.

So minus the scientific equipment that they use, you are saying that they hear and see things because they have proven to themselves (or likely repeated to themselves) so many times that these things are real and that something is going to happen, that they make it happen? Feel free to correct me if I misinterpreted that.

Either way, it IS an interesting way of looking at it. The mind IS a powerful thing and it has been proven that when you've been told by others or yourself over and over again for a long enough period of time, you start to believe it.

Just because they use equipment that has a legitimate purpose in actual science does not mean that what they are doing is scientific. I can use a speculum for fun but I wouldn't call what I do gynecology.

And yes, that is exactly what I am saying. These people, like so many others, have fallen into the trap of confirmation bias. Wherein one only recognizes evidence that supports the belief they have already chosen, even if the support is only imagined by the observer.

Just because they use equipment that has a legitimate purpose in actual science does not mean that what they are doing is scientific. I can use a speculum for fun but I wouldn't call what I do gynecology.

And yes, that is exactly what I am saying. These people, like so many others, have fallen into the trap of confirmation bias. Wherein one only recognizes evidence that supports the belief they have already chosen, even if the support is only imagined by the observer.

I can see that yes. I still find it interesting to watch, even if only for entertainment. I have experienced things that I just can't understand. Maybe one day these things will be uncovered and they will turn from unknown chaos to science. Only time will tell.

Have you looked at some of the "scientific" equipment that they use? Some of it looks like a bunch of "shit" that they bought at radio shack, added some lights and called it something. Using 6's analogy of a speculum, it would be like taking two ice cream sticks, stapling it together, parting it and calling it a scientific gynecological instrument.

I do agree that the show is entertaining on some level, but that is about as far as I would go.

_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

My only problem with this is with the notion of falsifiability. Where although Popper is accepted to an extent he is certainly not the most accepted explanatory power in philosophy of science. Most go with Kuhn's notion of paradigms and subscribe to a method of probabilistic induction.

You're over-analyzing. The framework is designed to teach college freshmen and sophomores, who have no background in critical thinking, how to view paranormal claims from a scientific point of view; not to teach them philosophy of science.

The falsifiability point is mainly aimed at getting the students to concentrate on defining terms and claims and looking at evidence.

Kuhn himself emphasized accuracy as a comparative between paradigms, and induction requires evidence. Most paranormal claims / shows / theories are dubiously supported by the evidence (if any) - I think that's the point.

While I don't think I have ever heard of this Kuhn person I can say that you are not off-base on the first part of your reply. Indeed the piece on the OP was designed to be a "crash-course" of sorts in critical thinking and, as you also stated, not meant "to teach them the philosophy of science."

-------------------------------------------------

Quote:

A simple search would show the connections of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn to the subject. It would take about the same energy as typing the question here and helped save face.

Right, except for the fact that I am not concerned with saving face here. Someone brought up two people that I hadn't heard of before, and who were previously unmentioned in this thread, so I inquired about them.

Really I am more concerned with receiving an answer for the first question I asked. I probably couldn't care less who either of the people in question are. Just because I employ critical thinking skills doesn't mean I have no be familiar with every single person related to them.

Karl Popper was a philosopher who wrote extensively one of his most if not the most notorious works is the work of falsification which extends itself as an all encompassing methodology of science. Not only attempting to serve as a term of demarcation between what is science and what is pseudo science. But also contributive to his theory on how scientific knowledge is built.

It might be noted that you did not premise falsifiability as dependent or contingent on Popper's understanding and build on of the terminology. Though the elaboration you provide I assumed was quite grounded in the ideas of falsification/falsifiability of Popper as a one to one correlation. But perhaps you are also trying to test me as if you are a PhD in anthropology with an investment on critical thinking and applying a scientific method to analyse cultural discourse I'd be surprised if you has not heard the name before. I'd also be surprised if it is merely a principle of falsifiability as some law of logical abstraction and not a reference to an adaptation of Popper's work.

In any event I think Thomas Kuhn brought to light the notion of paradigms in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Which I think more correctly describes how scientific theories are adopted. Mainly because his method more easily allows the adhoc method of science to persists and more

accurately describes it and also opens the door for socio-historical pressures to also more readily be accountable in discourse of why a particular theory etc is accepted.

More so the notion of paradigms might be taken as simply large identified bodies of discourse with different contextual basis of evidences and practices encouraging interdisciplinary communication. But with regard to scientific paradigms the distinction is process of experimentation and probabilistic induction etc.

I think my main concern with falsification in principle, is that it is described as a foundational principle the way naive falsification works yet the way sciences work it is always on a more sophisticated model. Popper himself worked on the system for a great many years and made revisions to it which means a few different modes of falsification have entered discourse.

I think I also prefer paradigms simply because it allows a more readily accessible narrative to science and humanities as self contained information or discourse sets. Whilst falsification concerns itself with only science and thus as a comprehensive informational system and regails in the old synthetic vs analytic claim Quine blew out of the water with his work on the two dogmas of Empiricism.

Particularly with anthropology which I think blurs the line between humanities and science depending I suppose what you are dealing with as a cultural anthropologist of the history of rock and roll is a little different to one which assesses archeological evidence. .

@ Auto I might have over-analysed a little with everything else that is there and the premise that it is directly related to help college students assess evidence it fits the bill. But there is a notion in University that some teaching processes involve a reeducation. Re-Training people how to think (for young grasshopper cannot learn when his cup is full).

When paradigmatic theory or at the very least the notion of paradigms is also important in any discussion of the history of or anthropological theory itself I thought it perhaps more convenient and more significant notion.

Christ on a stick I read your second page response and just started replying. Bugger it.

Right SPECIFIC to your first question several reasons with little to no elaboration.

1. Falsifiability is a term of demarcation that relates to a larger theory which does IN SOME PRESENTATIONS have problems. See naive falsification.

2. The work does not permeate or translate equally as well in discourse with humanities significant when dealing with anthropology whilst paradigmatic theory does allow a more readily available exchange.

3. Paradigms more readily allows an analysis which breaks down an analysis to allow for adhoc additions to a particular experiment or research project to improve its informational quality and description.

Perhaps my analysis is a little exaggerated but you can take of it what you will. I am not saying that the informational quality of this piece is poor or outright wrong merely providing honest feedback to my own preferential predilection of informational, interpretive theory, scientific methods across the board. Also my only contention was one out of what was it six presentation points which form the whole guide.

It might be noted that you did not premise falsifiability as dependent or contingent on Popper's understanding and build on of the terminology. Though the elaboration you provide I assumed was quite grounded in the ideas of falsification/falsifiability of Popper as a one to one correlation. But perhaps you are also trying to test me as if you are a PhD in anthropology with an investment on critical thinking and applying a scientific method to analyse cultural discourse I'd be surprised if you has not heard the name before.

It also might be noted that I didn't write this nor did I ever claim to. A reading of the thread will show I say the exact opposite, several times over. That is, someone else wrote this and I simply put it up for other people to reference.

Is this entire body perfect? Probably not. Nor do I think it pretends to be. However I think it does contain useful information to help the "layman", who doesn't have a strong grounding in scientific methodology, develop a more discerning eye for bullshit. Which, as has already been stated, was the point of the article in the first place.

I can1. Commit libel against him and risk getting caught and punished.2. Not committing libel against him and that means not harming my enemies.3. Have faith and truly believe that porn cause rape, and gun shot people by themselves.

The third way seems to have the advantage of 1&2 isn't it? Faith allow evil to say burn others' properties, extort money, and still not paying the full political costs of their acts.

Some muslims, for example, would burn churches and pubs in Indonesia. Obviously it's beneficial to harm others because it instill fear. Fear of others means power. And power is true wealth. But somehow they need something to justify the arsons. Hence, faith.

It's foolish then to simply think that faithful people as stupid. They're more devilishly smart than scientists and most sceptics. Well I talked with many to be frank.

Just to add my 2 cents, "The art of controversy" by A. Schopenhauer is a good complement to critical thinking as descrtibed in the initial post. The book exposes some common traps in which one can easily fall. The traps look like truth, seems logic but have a flawn. The way to avoid the traps are also exposed.

You can find the book content along with illustration of these trap on this site.

Critical thinking as explained in the first post, is well explained. But the consequences of applying that standard of critical thinking to magic are not explored. Likely because as quickly the claims to real made by the myths of religion fall apart rapidly in the face of critical appraisal, so too do claim of working with any supernatural power or 'magic'.

I like to distinguish soundness of reason from validity of reason, The distinction is the degree to which you permit an arguer their own facts. Which ideally should be inexcusable, but in practice and in the domain of 'metaphysics' it's almost impossible to make another question facts they have forged their very identity from.

So a Christian, for example, is unlikely with relinquish axioms relating to God, heaven and hell, for example. And if you want to pursue an argument with a Christian (for example - or a Traditional Satanist if you are anything else), really you can only do so if you allow yourself to agree to disagree with regard to their axioms.

So where the axioms cannot be agreed upon, you both are entitled to believe the argument of the other unsound. But invalid thinking, do their conclusions legitimately follow their evidence and argument? That can humiliate an opponent and is what is possible.

Confirmation bias is the boogy man in critical thinking. To explain simply, it is the tendency of any human to pay more attention to writing and facts that confirm that which they already believe, and to pay less attention to or even dismiss that writing or facts that are at odd with what you already believe.

If you are an Atheist, it is extremely easy to understand how the religious bigot you dislike, their belief system would be impossible without profound confirmation bias. It has been argued the usefulness of Astrology would be impotent if people refused to credit astrological predictions when they seem to be right, and ignore those prediction that are wrong or irrelevant.

As a magician, you must understand that any result you produce is indistinguishable from coincidence. You may find as I do that intentionally helping yourself believe in magic with 'intellectual decompression' or simply using confirmation bias to ignore failures and remember successes - it is part of what helps you be more successful.

Magic is a subjective art. It simply cannot withstand the rigors of scientific method (but then, quantum physics is not entirely dissimilar). A strategy common to Chaos magic is to focus on the result, because that is as close to binary - yes or no, as magic gets.

Magic is more than a subjective art... but yes tis different from run of the mill discourse. So point taken but critical thinking is not in and of itself designed to point necessarily to a definitive answer. Critical thinking is to do justice for oneself and the opinion that is offered in a frank analysis of what it is really trying to say and contexualising it's validity.

Obviously the same critical thinking techniques might not be taken lump sum as what is needed to understand chemistry and what is needed to understand say a historical piece work fundamnetally under different conditions. The inexplicable happens all to often and I am with Sam Harris on the need to make a meaningful distinction between the numinous and what is just plain silly.

To be honest there is nothing really to say about miracles or anything else in and of themself. I don't even dignify them as being a proof just a designated association to play into someone elses language game.

It happened or more then likely did I take it as axiomatic the reporting is accurate but one can look up the peer reviewed literature on it.

Point being take the same girl and put her in front of an alter or a sacred site and bobs your uncle we have a fucking miracle. So I don't even neccessarily take the argument of miracle to be a proof positive claim for religion in the first place.

It sounds like an interesting course, but why not create an elective based on thinking skills itself. Herein people are given reasoning problems and various excercises of the mind and taught some of the above evaluative methods.

I hate the term "critical". The reason is I have been studying to become a teacher in college. We are taught "critical pedagogy" which essentially is a form of Marxism. In this theory teachers are supposed to indoctrinate children in Marxism rather than allow them to think for themselves. Teachers are "agents of social change" and we are taught to hate 'those in power' and "tear down the existing power structure" which means white males.

My last class had many statements in the textbook which were hateful towards whites accusing them of creating the ghetto and saying all whites benefit from white privilege. There is never any evidence given for these statements, they are given as fact, Critical pedagogy teaches us to challenge the system and criticize it but when I challenged the hate speech in my book I was told that was not the proper place to do it.

Then the school implied that I would get "beat up" if I opened my mouth about the anti-white racism and implied that I won't be able to find a job as a teacher if I speak out against this nonsense.

Critical pedagogy is about turning children's brains off and indoctrinating them in hate.

It is related to critical race theory which is another Marxist theory dreamed up by Jewish Nationalists and Black Nationalists (racists) and is based on hating white people and destroying white society. As one college textbook put it "we need to destroy the existing white power structure"

So the irony here is that critical theory has become a code word for "hate" and Marxism rather than actual thinking. In fact these theories are anti-scientific and anti-thought.

So I almost cringe whenever I here the word "critical" in an educational context. That's why I like to say "thinking skills" or something. But it's like 1984 where our words are stolen to mean the opposite of their original intent.

But yes public school mainly is about teaching people to be good slaves and sheep. Elites send their children to private schools or home school them. The public schools are training people to flip burgers, work in factories and mow rich people's grass. So obviously these people are mostly taught how to do what they are told rather than be critical thinkers.

There is an epidemic in our society though with everything being dumbed down and less emphasis on actual ability. Guess where this comes from? Critical theory.

according to critical theory the goal of education is egalitarianism and actual free thought, academic achievement etc. takes a back seat.

This was used in the soviet union and created a "brain drain" and led to economic collapse. Now the US is heading in the same direction.

This is one reason for my private society work. Our society is going to hell in a hand basket so to speak. And they try to threaten me if I speak out against it. By why would any sane or rational person support something that is so utterly destructive to society? Personal greed and also they aren't sane or rational.

I also ask them where this hate comes from. They all seem to be jealous of anyone who does better than them and believe if they burn down their neighbor's house they will someone look superior in comparison. That's basically the philosophy of life at the highest levels of society now.

I enjoyed reading the original post and how so many critical thinkers exercised their minds on this. I think I will have to revisit this topic only because I have a headache from reading it and not feeling well today.@Thule:I had an experience while going to film school, I had to take an English class and we had to write a review about a movie called a "Thousand Pieces of Gold", a story about a Chinese immigrant who works as a prostitute in one of the California mining camps during the 1800s. The English teacher used her classroom to propagate her personal political agenda and anti-religious ideas, and used that story as a basis for her arguments. A story which was more than likely edited for content! I could have sympathized with her on some of those issues, but she was abusing the privilege of having a classroom to such a degree that if my critical thinking did not coincide with her worldview, then I was getting an "F". I left the class. I wasn't going to sit there and be told it was my fault American Indians were killed by Miners even though I'm Cherokee and Cheyenne. I am also not going to be told that its my fault that many Chinese were killed by foreigners who came from "Europe" to pan for gold.

It's funny how the article contained within the first post is specifically designed to do the exact opposite of what it claims... That would be, destroy a person's ability to reason.This issue of falsifiability is, essentially, the belief in nothing at all. The belief that, ultimately, nothing is true.If that is so, why don't you go kill yourself? Because you don't really exist anyway."Critical Thinking" is not what it is made out to be, just as there is quite a difference between 'rational' thinking and logic or reason.Take the term literally, "Critical Thinking".TRUTH IS NOT THOUGHT, TRUTH IS KNOWING... And if you don't know, don't worry.

Falsifiability is a method used in conjunction with other methods to make a determination. I don't have a college degree but I comprehend the message in the "field guide". I was raised to think for myself, make my own decisions, and take into consideration the experience of others. This article helped me to bolster my belief in myself.

I enjoyed this thread and think that critical thinking is essential. Wether you are smart or an idiot thinking for your self is essential. I see it all the time, people buying into ideas that make no sense just because of who said it.

Some of my favorite critical thinking fails involve theology, history and philosophy. For instance Ialdabaoth is Yahweh but is invoked in the Luciferian Ensorcelling Rite.

Furthermore I am boggled by the fact that the foundational philosophy and goals of the T.O.T.B.L. seems identical whith the Ancient Gnostic Heresy. They are both Anti-cosmic, wherein the true divinities appear demonic and the goal is to destroy the world to free the sparks.

Any time people let others tell them what to think and give up on thinking for themselves there will be huge fails in critical thinking.

Once upon a time research involved actually cracking books and verifying sources by experts in their respective fields.

Now anyone can and does edit, annotate and create Wikipedia resources. It is not a reliable source. It is true, log on and spin what you want. I dare you to make a Wiki about anything and you can spin it anyway you want. Make your own propaganda. And then use it to back up your arguments. Sweet.

Historically Ialdabaoth is another name for Yahweh. See the Nag Hamadi library. It was the supreme secret of the Gnostic Heretics that the Creator God (and both Ialdabaoth and Yahweh are sited as such) that the Creator God is really the Devil that Jesus came to save us from.

I am referring to research not what I believe per se. Obviously.

We are in the brave new world of internet media which makes it more vital than ever to do your own research. How can you free your mind if you do not think for your self. It is your responsibility to be informed about what you think.

It appears to me that all of you are in fact in favor of “critical thinking,” but are simply arguing over the nuts and bolts of it.

If I understand Leingod correctly, he is basically saying that just because someone claims and believes themselves to be using critical thinking in their assessments, they might actually be using a view that is tainted by their subjective personal experiences and view points, instead of having the ability to step outside of themselves and to look at a situation truly objectively. If that is indeed what he is saying then I would have to agree.

I would have to agree with you. It would seem that they have the same point of view, but dont realize they do. Just because one claims to use critical thinking to back their statement or view, does not make their claim any truer. You must take apart said claim and examin it yourself. Correct?

_________________________
The man who said ignorance is bliss is obviously lacking of will, or a complete fool.

My opinion is that most people in the world today are selfish...now selfishiness isnt a bad thing persay...but...I think the number one reason people have kids is because they want someone to take care of them when they are older...and someone to keep the family name alive...which is pure self intrest...People from all over the world keep fuckin and increasing the population, which will lead to higher taxes, more social prolems, and the end of the world as we know it...

I believe that critical thinking isnt taught to people in public schools that much, because of what the first post said...the government need to keep its people in control, and what better way to do that, than supress the education system...

SOOOOOOOOO...If you wanna have a kid, and not be a complete drag on this society, wait till you are well enough off to send your child to a private school, so he or she can get a decent education...

"My opinion is that most people in the world today are selfish...now selfishiness isnt a bad thing persay...but...I think the number one reason people have kids is because they want someone to take care of them when they are older...and someone to keep the family name alive...which is pure self intrest...People from all over the world keep fuckin and increasing the population, which will lead to higher taxes, more social prolems, and the end of the world as we know it.."

You OBVIOUSLY don't have kids. Parents spend most of their time working their fingers to the bone to provide their children with things like food, clothing, housing, toys, etc. I don't sit around thinking about how I have it made when I turn 80 because I have kids. My main goal is to get the little mini mes running around raised and prepared for the World when they are old enough to be on their own. They ain't passing down my name, just my genetics.

I do agree that having children is a selfish act. However, that's for one reason and one reason alone, EVERY act is selfish.

People are going to fuck regardless. It's not like people are having more kids today as they did in the past. The only difference is that in the past medical care sucked and the infant death rate was somewhere around 50%.

Solutions to this problem lie in easier access to contraception (and I don't mean the Government paying for it), not the World crossing their legs together.

"I believe that critical thinking isnt taught to people in public schools that much, because of what the first post said...the government need to keep its people in control, and what better way to do that, than supress the education system..."

Of course the government is using the public education system to keep the populace in control. That's not a shocker. I don't think it's the government's job to teach my children skills like this, it's my job.

"SOOOOOOOOO...If you wanna have a kid, and not be a complete drag on this society, wait till you are well enough off to send your child to a private school, so he or she can get a decent education..."

Soooooooo the private school is not going to be doing the same thing the public education system does? Where I live it's mostly Christian private schools. Should I expose them to that form of brain washing in order to not be a drag on society?

I'm not even going to get into the fact that private schools have to teach pretty much the same core curriculum in order to be accredited or else they education received their doesn't count. (I know two people this happened to. They had to get their GED after graduating because their private school wasn't accredited)

People pay for the Public Education system as well. It's called taxes. It's the parents responsibility to teach these kind of things. If the parent fails to, that's on them.

[Quick reply] You can try to teach children to be critical. Despite all education given, critical thinking will only be used when there's disagreement on a subject and almost never on a subject that's in line with religous or philosophical beliefs (where it actually should matter).

Genuine stupid people will remain stupid despite all critical thinking or education given.

I believe that the Ultimate Most CRUEL THING that you could do as a human, is create life...because as you create, you condemn...You condemn that new born baby to a life, and a death...which i believe is the cruelest thing of all...LIFE...Yes you get the pleasures of life....but i didnt sign up for the horrors of death...so why should i make someone else suffer the same fate?

I guess its all about perspective...in which i believe yours is skewed, because you let your emotions tell you LIVE...but reality, tells you DIE!

Man, I know you're trying to be deep here, but the level of 'deep thought' hits my ankles at best man.

If you don't experience life you never exist. So you have no experiences whatsoever, you are nothing.

When it comes to life I go with LaVey, "Life is the great indulgence--death, the great abstinence. Therefore, make the most of life--HERE AND NOW"- Anton LaVey

Life and Death are simply two sides of the same coin man. I find nothing cruel about Death (sucks for the people who mourn you), it simply is.

Anyway, the thread was about critical thinking, not that having children makes someone a big ole meany.

"You can try to teach children to be critical. Despite all education given, critical thinking will only be used when there's disagreement on a subject and almost never on a subject that's in line with religous or philosophical beliefs (where it actually should matter). "

You can teach this, it's even simple to do. Let me give you an example. I bought my son a book about the Earth, how it was formed, how old it is, it touched on Evolution, etc (he's a Science nut). His grandmother bought him a Creationist book on how the Earth was formed.

He comes to me about the whole thing. Slams both of the books on the table and said, "Which book is lying?"

I asked him, "Which book do you think is lying?"

So we discussed it for awhile and what I told him was this: It doesn't matter what I think, what Grammy thinks, what Daddy thinks or anyone else, what matters is what you think. What you find to be true, what you figure out about the World on your own.

^^That teaches critical thinking. I don't care what they become, just that it's on their own terms. Even small children encounter these kinda things. Most parents TELL the child what to believe, they don't make them do the work to figure it out for themselves.

I'd say that's only offering options and then be inconclusive. I wasn't there when you had that little chat but I'm inclined to believe you learned it jackshit. Minds change with age and like I said before, you can learn critical thinking but the catch is knowing when to apply it.

Pat yourself on the back for this and other small instances your son questions things. Let's see if that behavior will be kept up years after his curiosity stage.

You said that people only think critically when there's disagreement. That's true--it comes from the argumentative theory of reasoning. For the most part, humans use reason to support what they already believe, instead of to find the true answer.

As the cartoon I posted before notes, there are two ways to approach critical thinking: from conclusion to supporting facts (bias, as described above) or from facts to supported conclusion.

When a child asks a question like FS's son did, he hasn't "picked a side" yet; he has no bias. If one "offers options," it creates the very disagreement that spurs critical thinking. Offering options to a child's question is encouraging him to think critically without bias.

The whole reason children have that curiosity stage is because they are born without knowledge they need to acquire. You can teach a child conclusions, or you can teach a child how to find conclusions. Teaching a child a conclusion ends the line of inquiry. Teaching a child how to find a conclusion encourages him to keep inquiring. It develops a good habit of going from facts to supported conclusion, instead of from conclusion to supporting facts.

By the way, inconclusive describes a set of facts, not a person. You would describe a person that fails to draw a conclusion as "indecisive," not inconclusive. FS wasn't being indecisive. She had a conclusion; she just withheld it.

The whole reason children have that curiosity stage is because they are born without knowledge they need to acquire. You can teach a child conclusions, or you can teach a child how to find conclusions. Teaching a child a conclusion ends the line of inquiry. Teaching a child how to find a conclusion encourages him to keep inquiring. It develops a good habit of going from facts to supported conclusion, instead of from conclusion to supporting facts.

That's dry theory really. Yes, it has learned how to reach conclusions on its own. But is there still a willingness to question or be critical as soon as it reached a conclusion?

I've said it before, there is a difference between teaching the methods and actual application.

yes...but there is always the person/people who defy logic, like someone who can see the future...like me...

If you are incapable of contributing more to a discussion than vague allusions to power, with half-sentences spaced apart by a criminal misue of ellipses, then refrain from posting or I will ensure that you do not post at all. And it will be permanent.

An excellent post, an excellent read. Thank you for sharing this intense information on Critical Thinking. I find this very understandable, interesting and Awesome! I like being able to identify the facts of reality and validating them. Never deny what you verify!

Thank you for sharing the works of James Lett with me. Je'suis de'soleje pour mon professeur de comportement sarrasins.Anton,merci de benir mon maitre et moi-meme thrue. I am sorry for my brash behavior teacher.Anton,thank for blessing my teacher ,and yourself thrue me Anton how i empower thee as magnifying power wefulfillment of our wills receive fulfillment of our wills repreive whence forth since hence hence forth since whence rightously now we recompense the cause acheived by victory it is our will how made to be

You need to use a spell check. You also need to use proper English sentence structure. I find it hard to believe you are writing in French when you can't even use English. Keep up this stupid shit and you will be banned. Morgan

My Opinion:Critical thinking is relevant in every single thought you produce.You need to be able to pick out the bullshit, not only in the theories of others but in your own as well, because the belief in a single lie is the beginning of all falsehood. I consider the occult an unrecognized science, and as such we are all scientists of varying degrees. Logic, reason, critical thinking and The Scientific Method will bring you a long ways if you let it. Hell, you might even change the world.

Also, some funny motherfuckers up in this forum.. Lol @ the guy who can see into the future..

I really like Robert Anton Wilson's view concerning the reality tunnels. -Even though he (as far as I know) never claimed to be a satanist. There are not that much things in the world you can really know for sure. But there is an endless amount of "what ifs"... There are some good videos on YouTube about Wilson explaining his views.

Edited by Mensch (10/18/1302:58 PM)Edit Reason: Edited the video link

_________________________
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger."-Friedrich Nietzsche

Excellent article, totally useable. Unless of coarse, the subject doing the critical thinking and judging assumed he or she had, at that time, all evidence, discovered, or not. So they key to unlocking critical thinking is to never, ever stop questioning. The minute one looses fascination with the impossible, the universe sucks.

Absolutely marvelous! Thank you for sharing this. I believe this post will require a few read-throughs on my part to soak it all in.

I homeschool my children for these very reasons...however, even now, agents of the State's Ivory Tower is trying to tell me HOW to homeschool, and getting damn pushy in the process.

I'm having now to teach them (my children) two ways: "theirs" and the "critical" way. Basically, I have to hand in papers with "their" way, being sure to tell my kids that it isn't always the "right" way. Yes, I am teaching my kids how to lie and act...but they seem to understand the reasons why. Their mom and I are both Satanists, so I can only hope the apples didn't fall too far from the tree.

_________________________
In all seriousness, I take my lack of seriousness seriously!

Thank you for taking to time to post this summary. This was a great review of what I learned in my critical thinking class in college. I am at a place in my life where this type of critical thinking is in play. I'm trying to grow past all the delusions that were put there through previous learning and the art of suggestion by the people that were influential in making my psychological make up so blurry and detached from reality and truth. I am hungry for truth, and this is the tools and process I need to satisfy my desire. Sometimes I wish I could just wipe my disc clean and start new, but instead its more of a purification and purging type of process.

_________________________
"This is the morning of magic, and undefiled wisdom." The Black Pope

Megatron "Every single worldview is OWNED. Whether by an individual or a collective." This is an awesome statement. I own my worldview, which I believe be based in truth and in real time. The collective worldview by others, when I relate with it, seems that its archaic and not based in the current reality.

_________________________
"This is the morning of magic, and undefiled wisdom." The Black Pope

I enjoyed reading this thread and have a new outlook on studying philosophy using this method. I think the school system should start teaching this method of critical thinking in grades as early as elementary school (fifth grade at least ). Especially middle school because it would be very useful as children go into high school and get ready for college.

I think the school system should start teaching this method of critical thinking in grades as early as elementary school (fifth grade at least ).

Why concern yourself with that? The idea is to have the upper hand in all aspects of your life, to 'reign' it. I find it curious that your thoughts defaulted to altruism. So what's your angle? Do you really benefit from ensuring that the people are around you are just as critical in their thinking patterns?

Do you really benefit from ensuring that the people are around you are just as critical in their thinking patterns?

He might not, but I could really benefit from a more critical approach from those around me in my daily life. Especially in matters of what constitutes 'state' and jurisdiction over criminal activity. That, and the many other things these idiots all fail to recognize.

The government provides a basic education, a more critical learning process could be maintained in the home. That's how I approached it with my own child. Besides, I think it benefits kids to learn how the 'other half' live.

I've actually thought about home schooling them myself. There's alot of the governments curriculum I don't agree with. For example, when I was in school I learned about tragedies like Wacco Texas, Jonestown etc.., my son is going into High School and my daughter is going to Middle school and they don't know what the Water Gate Scandal is.